Concerned about 'DIPS' system - Page 7

draven085 · 04-05-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jestre
And we needed a study to determine this???? Homeruns, walks and strikeouts have been considered by most to be the most important stats for a pitcher for some time, and yes of course they are not effected by defense, thats the easy part.....

Wrong. If they can get past a pitcher's W-L record most people look at ERA and possibly WHIP when evaluating a pitcher's performance.

elmerlee · 04-05-2004, 01:33 PM

Quote from draven085 -

"However, to argue that this information will tell us essentially the same thing that accepted stats do is simply false. Even DIPS preliminary findings are helping us to better understand the role of the pitcher."

Helping who to understand?
Digit-heads that think they know more than everyone else?

The fact that less than 6 people are quoted as being behind this thought process is really,really,really unimportnat in comparison to all others involved in baseball analysis.

Some people here need to get into the real world rather that talk to inate objects all day.

jened · 04-05-2004, 01:35 PM

are there any anti-dips articles out there by stat heads dismissing dips?

Gastric ReFlux · 04-05-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elmerlee
Quote from draven085 -
Digit-heads that think they know more than everyone else?

The official term is StatHead, with the plural of StatHeadZZZ. Probably the first instance in recorded history of a StatHead is Mr. Gallileo, and he ruined that whole gravity thing. I was very disappointed in the Catholic Church when they issued an apology recently to Gallileo, that sort of abandoning of core values has thoroughly wrecked my enjoyment of the earth's gravitational field.

Mel_Ott · 04-05-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
The official term is StatHead, with the plural of StatHeadZZZ. Probably the first instance in recorded history of a StatHead is Mr. Gallileo, and he ruined that whole gravity thing. I was very disappointed in the Catholic Church when they issued an apology recently to Gallileo, that sort of abandoning of core values has thoroughly wrecked my enjoyment of the earth's gravitational field.

Let's not forget that jackass Copernicus! Anyone can look out the window and see clearly that the Sun revolves around the Earth! How can this doof try to claim that the Earth is hurtling through space when my coffee stays perfectly still on my desk and we see everything in the sky rotating around us!?!?!?!

Statheadzzzz suck.

Instead of DIPS, we need to increase the effect of the "clutch" and "team leadership" ratings, to reflect the positive effects of playing with Doug Clutchville and buying dinner for your teammates.

Craig Scarborough · 04-05-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elmerlee

Helping who to understand?
Digit-heads that think they know more than everyone else?

The fact that less than 6 people are quoted as being behind this thought process is really,really,really unimportnat in comparison to all others involved in baseball analysis.

Some people here need to get into the real world rather that talk to inate objects all day.

I don't like your inflammatory tone here. Should I pick a stereotypical term for your point of view as well?

I really don't understand the argument. There's data out there that supports the DIPS hypothesis. There is no data that proves it's wrong. I really don't know what to say when you completely disregard empirical evidence. Just because people have been doing things a certain way for a long time, doesn't make it necessarily so.

I love the argument, "have you ever played ball?". Then it becomes, "have you ever played ball beyond high school?" Then, "have you ever played professional ball?" Finally, "have you ever started in an all-star game?" When the person says, "no" - the questioner says, "Ah ha! How could you know anything about the game?!" "Well, because I have 90 years of data that shows it!" "Yeah, but have you ever played ball?" - rinse, lather, repeat.

The fact is, baseball has never been applied scientifically, and there's a certain job security and comfort level attained by doing things the "old way". When new hypothesese are formed, it's threatening to the current power structure and there are a great many that will do anything to discredit it. However, there are others who look at it as a new way to look at the game, and a way to better understand it.

-Craig

Henry · 04-05-2004, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elmerlee
Quote from draven085 -

"However, to argue that this information will tell us essentially the same thing that accepted stats do is simply false. Even DIPS preliminary findings are helping us to better understand the role of the pitcher."

Helping who to understand?
Digit-heads that think they know more than everyone else?

The fact that less than 6 people are quoted as being behind this thought process is really,really,really unimportnat in comparison to all others involved in baseball analysis.

Some people here need to get into the real world rather that talk to inate objects all day.

Elmer,

If you want us to take you seriously, your going to have to start providing concrete responses to the studies that have been done - rather than making personal attacks simply because you think we're not "in the real world".

The bottom line is we believe those "professionals" you refer to are, in fact, beginning to pay more attention to DIPS as well as other statistical analysis. From the way you've been presenting yourself, we shouldn't have paid any attention to Bill James either.

If you can provide something more than the fact you believe the professional world is laughing at us, we'd be happy to consider it.

Henry

ps: and I can quote you as saying "If one professional (A & UP) ballplayer backs the DIPS thought I will back off and admit I am wrong. Just one. ". I guess you upped the number...

elmerlee · 04-05-2004, 02:26 PM

No - I'm not talking about "Statheads". I myself could be considered one of those I guess.

By "digit-heads" I'm takling about people married to "00100110".

Ok - Henry. Who is it here that has played at the "A" or better level.I must not have seen the post by that person ?

Some of you are correct that I'm a little overboard on this and I guess I will give up but I wish just one of you ,other than SirRich,would admit that any of us on the other side have at least a small part of a valid point.This has really been what has led me to get "violent".

highandoutside · 04-05-2004, 02:32 PM

Geez Elmerlee, can't you at least be civil. What is the matter with you?

Hey guys, I have been playing DMB for many years. After following this discussion for some time, I am seriously thinking about giving OOTP a try. However, I have another "concern about the DIPS system" that hasn't been mentioned yet.

While DMB has many limitations, its great strength is that what it does, it does very well. The "guts" of the game are rock solid. I was wondering how confident you are that with all the changes Markus is making that the game engine will remain solid. I always get a bit nervous when I hear that a programmer is making huge changes to a game because that often means that the basics of the game may get overlooked. Are you all comfortable that Markus will release a game engine that is polished? All the bells and whistles mean nothing if the game engine is buggy.

Henry · 04-05-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elmerlee
Ok - Henry. Who is it here that has played at the "A" or better level.I must not have seen the post by that person ?

"Pitchers like Pedro Martinez and Greg Maddux have, at times, expressed thoughts on the matter. Martinez has been quoted as saying that the batter determines what happens once he hits the ball. Maddux described his scoreless-inning streak last year as "mostly luck" as hard hit balls that had been falling in were being caught."

Henry

Henry · 04-05-2004, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by highandoutside
Hey guys, I have been playing DMB for many years. After following this discussion for some time, I am seriously thinking about giving OOTP a try. However, I have another "concern about the DIPS system" that hasn't been mentioned yet.

While DMB has many limitations, its great strength is that what it does, it does very well. The "guts" of the game are rock solid. I was wondering how confident you are that with all the changes Markus is making that the game engine will remain solid. I always get a bit nervous when I hear that a programmer is making huge changes to a game because that often means that the basics of the game may get overlooked. Are you all comfortable that Markus will release a game engine that is polished? All the bells and whistles mean nothing if the game engine is buggy.

highandoutside,

I have no doubt that the new engine will be solid. That's not to say there won't be some adjustments, but Markus has ALWAYS jumped in to create patches if any errors were apaprent. The entire reason for the new engine was to get more accuracy, and I believe that will happen.

Being an old DMB player myself, I will caution you that OOTP is not a "replay simulation" in the sense that you will get accurate season to season statistics per player. You WILL get historical players with careers that mirror their real life capabilities, but the game does not attempt to recreate actual seasonal results.

Henry

chrisj · 04-05-2004, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elmerlee
Ok - Henry. Who is it here that has played at the "A" or better level.I must not have seen the post by that person ?

Although he doesn't post here, Billy Beane has played above "A" ball and believes in the theory.

You're not going to find many people posting here who have played in A ball for a couple reasons. How many baseball fans have played A ball or above? A very small percertage - one would assume less than .01%. Now how many people post here? Maybe a few thousand or so. And of those, how many people have read this thread? Probably even less.

geoff · 04-05-2004, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisj
Although he doesn't post here, Billy Beane has played above "A" ball and believes in the theory.

Apparently Theo Epstein gives it a fair amount of credence as well...he _did_ HIRE McCracken, after all.

D Love · 04-05-2004, 02:58 PM

I must say, this thread is going no where. I do not know why Henry et al continue trying to reason with elmer when he is clearly not attempting to argue. You present data that supports a theory. He retorts that the theory is counterintuitive but will not provide contradictory data. You concede that this is still "theory" and not "fact", but that there hasn't been much out there to refute this theory thus far.

Continuing this "conversation" just encourages people to make rash posts that are not based on logical concepts. I thought the admins were trying to limit such posts. Everyone is entitled to express their opinions, but once people have responded to you and you only become more insulting and continuing making conclusory statements without presenting any evidence, it's up to the more reasonable persons to end the volley of posts.

Henry · 04-05-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by D Love
I must say, this thread is going no where. I do not know why Henry et al continue trying to reason with elmer when he is clearly not attempting to argue. You present data that supports a theory. He retorts that the theory is counterintuitive but will not provide contradictory data. You concede that this is still "theory" and not "fact", but that there hasn't been much out there to refute this theory thus far.

Continuing this "conversation" just encourages people to make rash posts that are not based on logical concepts. I thought the admins were trying to limit such posts. Everyone is entitled to express their opinions, but once people have responded to you and you only become more insulting and continuing making conclusory statements without presenting any evidence, it's up to the more reasonable persons to end the volley of posts.

Good point. I was trying to be as understanding as possible - but I have to agree it seems beyond hope

Elmer also has a habit of posting - then disappearing for a day or two so he doesn't have to respond directly to your responses. I did say once before to give this up - then got drawn in again... not this time

Thanks for the wakeup call !!

Henry

elmerlee · 04-05-2004, 03:10 PM

I must have misunderstood the whole DIPS thing.

Went to the 2003 pitching stats and did the numbers for the qualifying pitchers for NY and Ariz.

I used BFP minus BB minus SO.
Divided hits minus HR by that number.
Ignored HB as they are fairly small.

Here is what I got. Only did the 2B for Yanks.

Wells .282 and .070
Pettitte .309 and .051
Mussina .276 and .066
Clemens .278 and .067
Webb .251
Schilling .284
Batista .297

Did I not use the right formula and if I did use the right numbers why are these numbers not important?

highandoutside · 04-05-2004, 03:17 PM

Henry,

I plan on using OOTP with fictional players. I'm intrigued by the idea of "creating a fictional baseball universe". ...wait...hold on a moment...Home Run Tigers!!! ok, back to my post.

I'm really becoming quite interested in this DIPS theory. At first it just seemed flat out wrong. But, the more one thinks about it, the theory is a bit more complex, or nuanced, than it first appears. I still can't wrap my mind around how DIPS accounts for the idea of keeping a batter "off balance", so as to force him to make less solid contact. Some pitchers are really good at this (have great change ups) others are not. I'm not sure how DIPS explains this but, like you've said many, many times, this is about creating a computer baseball simulation that mimics real life. If the simulation works then there is probably a logical answer contained within the formulas themselves.

CareyScurry · 04-05-2004, 03:55 PM

You'll also want to take HR out of the denominator, as those aren't balls in play.

Incidentally, you should expect to continue to see deviations between players for 2003 as no one is saying that there won't be differences between pitchers' BABIP within a given year - the thing is that those differences have little to no predictive power. For the most part, having a low (or high) BABIP in one year does not mean that you'll have a similar year the following season.
In fact, those within-year differences are a large part of why DIPS matters ... using a component or DIPS ERA has more predictive power than conventional ERA.

Jestre · 04-05-2004, 05:11 PM

It appears to me that the pro-DIPS contingent is postulating that if you remove homers, walks, strikeouts, defense and park effects then all pitchers are identical in effectiveness. That is a premise I simply don't agree with beyond the fact that I dont think defensive impact can be accurately measured. Anyone that watches baseball has to admit that poor pitchers are hit 'HARDER' than good pitchers. It is also obvious that the harder a ball is hit the more likely it will be a hit with the possible exception of the few players in history that could beat out infield grounders... I guess one could back into defense effect on pitchers if the effect of walks homers and k's has been quantified and then park effect can be adjusted out... However I still believe that would result in showing that good pitchers perform better than poor pitchers.

Awak · 04-05-2004, 05:32 PM

poor pitchers are hit "harder" more frequently than good pitchers. how does that disprove DIPS? the theory is that this "harder" can be explained by HR, BB's, and K's...so while you're somehow "removing" them, as you said, you're removing their ability to not get hit hard.

anyway...even if the theory isn't perfect, it's a helluva lot better than what OOTP5 uses for simulating accurate pitcher statistics.

04-05-2004, 01:35 PM	#123
jened Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: upstate NY (saratoga county) Posts: 255	are there any anti-dips articles out there by stat heads dismissing dips? __________________ cooper_gd's OTWE Results OTWE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION: KING JENED III

04-05-2004, 05:11 PM	#139
Jestre All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: North Smithfield,Ri,USA Posts: 612	It appears to me that the pro-DIPS contingent is postulating that if you remove homers, walks, strikeouts, defense and park effects then all pitchers are identical in effectiveness. That is a premise I simply don't agree with beyond the fact that I dont think defensive impact can be accurately measured. Anyone that watches baseball has to admit that poor pitchers are hit 'HARDER' than good pitchers. It is also obvious that the harder a ball is hit the more likely it will be a hit with the possible exception of the few players in history that could beat out infield grounders... I guess one could back into defense effect on pitchers if the effect of walks homers and k's has been quantified and then park effect can be adjusted out... However I still believe that would result in showing that good pitchers perform better than poor pitchers. __________________ My eyes perceive the present, but my roots are imbedded deeply in the grandeur of the past. "Chief Meyers"

04-05-2004, 01:33 PM	#122
elmerlee Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 215	Quote from draven085 - "However, to argue that this information will tell us essentially the same thing that accepted stats do is simply false. Even DIPS preliminary findings are helping us to better understand the role of the pitcher." Helping who to understand? Digit-heads that think they know more than everyone else? The fact that less than 6 people are quoted as being behind this thought process is really,really,really unimportnat in comparison to all others involved in baseball analysis. Some people here need to get into the real world rather that talk to inate objects all day.

04-05-2004, 02:26 PM	#128
elmerlee Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 215	No - I'm not talking about "Statheads". I myself could be considered one of those I guess. By "digit-heads" I'm takling about people married to "00100110". Ok - Henry. Who is it here that has played at the "A" or better level.I must not have seen the post by that person ? Some of you are correct that I'm a little overboard on this and I guess I will give up but I wish just one of you ,other than SirRich,would admit that any of us on the other side have at least a small part of a valid point.This has really been what has led me to get "violent".

04-05-2004, 02:32 PM	#129
highandoutside All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 683	Geez Elmerlee, can't you at least be civil. What is the matter with you? Hey guys, I have been playing DMB for many years. After following this discussion for some time, I am seriously thinking about giving OOTP a try. However, I have another "concern about the DIPS system" that hasn't been mentioned yet. While DMB has many limitations, its great strength is that what it does, it does very well. The "guts" of the game are rock solid. I was wondering how confident you are that with all the changes Markus is making that the game engine will remain solid. I always get a bit nervous when I hear that a programmer is making huge changes to a game because that often means that the basics of the game may get overlooked. Are you all comfortable that Markus will release a game engine that is polished? All the bells and whistles mean nothing if the game engine is buggy.

04-05-2004, 02:58 PM	#134
D Love All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 904	I must say, this thread is going no where. I do not know why Henry et al continue trying to reason with elmer when he is clearly not attempting to argue. You present data that supports a theory. He retorts that the theory is counterintuitive but will not provide contradictory data. You concede that this is still "theory" and not "fact", but that there hasn't been much out there to refute this theory thus far. Continuing this "conversation" just encourages people to make rash posts that are not based on logical concepts. I thought the admins were trying to limit such posts. Everyone is entitled to express their opinions, but once people have responded to you and you only become more insulting and continuing making conclusory statements without presenting any evidence, it's up to the more reasonable persons to end the volley of posts.

04-05-2004, 03:10 PM	#136
elmerlee Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 215	I must have misunderstood the whole DIPS thing. Went to the 2003 pitching stats and did the numbers for the qualifying pitchers for NY and Ariz. I used BFP minus BB minus SO. Divided hits minus HR by that number. Ignored HB as they are fairly small. Here is what I got. Only did the 2B for Yanks. Wells .282 and .070 Pettitte .309 and .051 Mussina .276 and .066 Clemens .278 and .067 Webb .251 Schilling .284 Batista .297 Did I not use the right formula and if I did use the right numbers why are these numbers not important?

04-05-2004, 03:17 PM	#137
highandoutside All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 683	Henry, I plan on using OOTP with fictional players. I'm intrigued by the idea of "creating a fictional baseball universe". ...wait...hold on a moment...Home Run Tigers!!! ok, back to my post. I'm really becoming quite interested in this DIPS theory. At first it just seemed flat out wrong. But, the more one thinks about it, the theory is a bit more complex, or nuanced, than it first appears. I still can't wrap my mind around how DIPS accounts for the idea of keeping a batter "off balance", so as to force him to make less solid contact. Some pitchers are really good at this (have great change ups) others are not. I'm not sure how DIPS explains this but, like you've said many, many times, this is about creating a computer baseball simulation that mimics real life. If the simulation works then there is probably a logical answer contained within the formulas themselves.

04-05-2004, 03:55 PM	#138
CareyScurry Minors (Double A) Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NC Posts: 109	You'll also want to take HR out of the denominator, as those aren't balls in play. Incidentally, you should expect to continue to see deviations between players for 2003 as no one is saying that there won't be differences between pitchers' BABIP within a given year - the thing is that those differences have little to no predictive power. For the most part, having a low (or high) BABIP in one year does not mean that you'll have a similar year the following season. In fact, those within-year differences are a large part of why DIPS matters ... using a component or DIPS ERA has more predictive power than conventional ERA.

04-05-2004, 05:32 PM	#140
Awak Bat Boy Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 9	poor pitchers are hit "harder" more frequently than good pitchers. how does that disprove DIPS? the theory is that this "harder" can be explained by HR, BB's, and K's...so while you're somehow "removing" them, as you said, you're removing their ability to not get hit hard. anyway...even if the theory isn't perfect, it's a helluva lot better than what OOTP5 uses for simulating accurate pitcher statistics.